Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: A Square is not a Square  (Read 1030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lover of Truth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8700
  • Reputation: +1158/-863
  • Gender: Male
A Square is not a Square
« on: April 28, 2014, 09:29:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4621/-480
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #1 on: April 28, 2014, 10:05:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are you saying a square cannot be a circle even if one sincerely believes that a square is a circle?

     :cussing:You horrible schismatic heretic apostate!!!!    :wink:


    Offline Dana

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 83
    • Reputation: +91/-1
    • Gender: Female
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #2 on: April 28, 2014, 10:16:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From pope Francis' homily of April 27,2014:


    "At the heart of this Sunday, which concludes the Octave of Easter and which John Paul II wished to dedicate to Divine Mercy, are the glorious wounds of the risen Jesus.
    He had already shown those wounds when he first appeared to the Apostles on the very evening of that day following the Sabbath, the day of the resurrection.  But Thomas was not there that evening, and when the others told him that they had seen the Lord, he replied that unless he himself saw and touched those wounds, he would not believe.  A week later, Jesus appeared once more to the disciples gathered in the Upper Room, and Thomas was present; Jesus turned to him and told him to touch his wounds.  Whereupon that man, so straightforward and accustomed to testing everything personally, knelt before Jesus with the words: “My Lord and my God!” (Jn 20:28).
    The wounds of Jesus are a scandal, a stumbling block for faith, yet they are also the test of faith.  That is why on the body of the risen Christ the wounds never pass away: they remain, for those wounds are the enduring sign of God’s love for us.  They are essential for believing in God.  Not for believing that God exists, but for believing that God is love, mercy and faithfulness.  Saint Peter, quoting Isaiah, writes to Christians: “by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet 2:24, cf. Is 53:5).
    John XXIII and John Paul II were not afraid to look upon the wounds of Jesus, to touch his torn hands and his pierced side.  They were not ashamed of the flesh of Christ, they were not scandalized by him, by his cross; they did not despise the flesh of their brother (cf. Is 58:7), because they saw Jesus in every person who suffers and struggles.  These were two men of courage, filled with the parrhesia of the Holy Spirit, and they bore witness before the Church and the world to God’s goodness and mercy.
    They were priests, bishops and popes of the twentieth century.  They lived through the tragic events of that century, but they were not overwhelmed by them.  For them, God was more powerful; faith was more powerful – faith in Jesus Christ the Redeemer of man and the Lord of history; the mercy of God, shown by those five wounds, was more powerful; and more powerful too was the closeness of Mary our Mother.
    In these two men, who looked upon the wounds of Christ and bore witness to his mercy, there dwelt a living hope and an indescribable and glorious joy (1 Pet 1:3,8).  The hope and the joy which the risen Christ bestows on his disciples, the hope and the joy which nothing and no one can take from them.  The hope and joy of Easter, forged in the crucible of self-denial, self-emptying, utter identification with sinners, even to the point of disgust at the bitterness of that chalice.  Such were the hope and the joy which these two holy popes had received as a gift from the risen Lord and which they in turn bestowed in abundance upon the People of God, meriting our eternal gratitude.
    This hope and this joy were palpable in the earliest community of believers, in Jerusalem, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. 2:42-47).  It was a community which lived the heart of the Gospel, love and mercy, in simplicity and fraternity.
    This is also the image of the Church which the Second Vatican Council set before us.  John XXIII and John Paul II cooperated with the Holy Spirit in renewing and updating the Church in keeping with her pristine features, those features which the saints have given her throughout the centuries.  Let us not forget that it is the saints who give direction and growth to the Church.  In convening the Council, John XXIII showed an exquisite openness to the Holy Spirit.  He let himself be led and he was for the Church a pastor, a servant-leader.  This was his great service to the Church; he was the pope of openness to the Spirit.
    In his own service to the People of God, John Paul II was the pope of the family.  He himself once said that he wanted to be remembered as the pope of the family.  I am particularly happy to point this out as we are in the process of journeying with families towards the Synod on the family. It is surely a journey which, from his place in heaven, he guides and sustains.
    May these two new saints and shepherds of God’s people intercede for the Church, so that during this two-year journey toward the Synod she may be open to the Holy Spirit in pastoral service to the family.  May both of them teach us not to be scandalized by the wounds of Christ and to enter ever more deeply into the mystery of divine mercy, which always hopes and always forgives, because it always loves."


    My opinion:  The circle (of rats) definitely cannot be a square....ever!  Francis' words are blasphemous and heretical.  It is as clear as ever he is not a Pope!

    No apology for the added emotion.

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #3 on: April 28, 2014, 10:38:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • We are witnessing first hand how far R & R's will go to have their "pope" and eat him.  I'm am not sure there is anything they can do that would open them up to the reality of SV.  

    I take that back.  It's all relative.  What is true for you may not be true for me.  Maybe he didn't mean to canonize them or anyone.  

    I have a suggestion for them.  How 'bout they cut the little remaining red tape and cannibalize Ratzinger right now?  Even if it comes out that he molested thousands of children it should not be a problem.  He was still Pope, and saintly because of V2 and all the inter-faith worship.  No one can take that from him.  

    I have not followed?  Paul 6 is not a saint yet?  What gives!!!  He is the best of them all.

    Not sure why half of this post came out bold.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1439
    • Reputation: +2103/-18
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #4 on: April 28, 2014, 10:44:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.
    "This principle is most certain: The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member. Now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others. Therefore, the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." -- St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4577/-579
    • Gender: Female
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #5 on: April 28, 2014, 10:45:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You seek to attribute infallibility to everything after Vatican II, (including Vatican II itself, which is NOT infallible), in order to justify your sedevacantist position.

    Still nobody here has been able to present where is it that the Church solemnly defined canonizations as infallible.

    Furthermore, those who say that this is a matter of faith, forget that Vatican I infallibly defined that supernatural revelations which constitute
    the object of the Catholic faith ended with the death of the last apostle and that the pope could only infallibly define these and only these revelations on faith and morals.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Dana

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 83
    • Reputation: +91/-1
    • Gender: Female
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #6 on: April 28, 2014, 10:52:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't worry LOT, they will have their day yet with Paul VI.  And I'm referring to the conciliar hierarchy, not the people who still hold an R&R position.  They'll canonize him before the year is up just to make Fr. Villa, Padre Pio and all look like quacks.

    They will eventually cut up little pieces of their new "saints", (hopefully holding back on Benedict XVI until he is actually dead!) and sell the parts on ebay.

    Remember the Black Masses on Paul VI's "opening day?"   It will get worse before it gets better for those who still believe in Catholic.

    May the Blessed Mother and St. Michael come to our defense very soon.  Keep praying folks!

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #7 on: April 28, 2014, 12:08:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.


    I see.  So if we could redefine "Saint" as "one who will 'legitimize' V2 and the new Mass" then all the anti-popes would qualify as would those who are neither Catholic or Novus Ordo.  Any ecuмenical person such as the protestant brother whom Ratzinger assured us was in Heaven.  I'm starting to get it now.  Thanks!

    Paul 6 did all the dirty (I mean saintly work) he should have easily slid in before Roncalli and JP2.
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #8 on: April 28, 2014, 01:00:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.


    I see.  So if we could redefine "Saint" as "one who will 'legitimize' V2 and the new Mass" then all the anti-popes would qualify as would those who are neither Catholic or Novus Ordo.  Any ecuмenical person such as the protestant brother whom Ratzinger assured us was in Heaven.  I'm starting to get it now.  Thanks!

    Paul 6 did all the dirty (I mean saintly work) he should have easily slid in before Roncalli and JP2.


    Maybe you have not heard, but his train is chugging along, and he should be receiving be "Blessed Paul VI" by this Fall.  I am sure this will be followed by his "canonization."

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/25/report-pope-paul-vi-beatified-california-miracle/
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #9 on: April 28, 2014, 01:03:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    You seek to attribute infallibility to everything after Vatican II, (including Vatican II itself, which is NOT infallible), in order to justify your sedevacantist position.

    Still nobody here has been able to present where is it that the Church solemnly defined canonizations as infallible.

    Furthermore, those who say that this is a matter of faith, forget that Vatican I infallibly defined that supernatural revelations which constitute
    the object of the Catholic faith ended with the death of the last apostle and that the pope could only infallibly define these and only these revelations on faith and morals.


    This also has to do with the indefectibility of the Church.  Though infallibility as well as a valid Pope cannot approve a heretical council, nor heretical canon law.  But neither can he approve of invalid and doubtful sacraments.  

    My question you is what purpose does a "Pope" serve whom we cannot trust as a good example, for sound doctrine, for valid sacraments, for a liturgy that is not an incentive to impiety and for cannon law that is not heretical?  Oh did I mention canonizations of saints that are prayed to by the universal Church in her official liturgy, both office and mass?  

    Why do we pick things after V2?  The questions answers itself because that is when the new "popes" started approving, teaching and instituting things doing things valid Popes cannot do?  Should we question the true Mass, Sacraments and councils in order to be "consistent"?  I seek to attribute the minimal requirement for legitimately holding ecclesiastical office.  The Catholic Faith.  WHATSOEVER you BIND on earth it will be bound in Heaven.  He who hears you hears Me.  I will be with you all days even until the end of time.  Has the Catholic God bound in Heaven the latest canonizations?  Did He quickly whisk the former anti-Popes from the depths of Hell the moment they were "officially" "canonized" by a "valid" "Pope"?  If not what is the purpose of canonizations anyway?  

    Saints are those that can be prayed to in the Church's official liturgy and whom we should imitate.  Where does the line start that gives away free cow dung on the forehead?  I'm inspired to imitate the virtue of ecuмaniacalism.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #10 on: April 28, 2014, 01:16:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.


    I see.  So if we could redefine "Saint" as "one who will 'legitimize' V2 and the new Mass" then all the anti-popes would qualify as would those who are neither Catholic or Novus Ordo.  Any ecuмenical person such as the protestant brother whom Ratzinger assured us was in Heaven.  I'm starting to get it now.  Thanks!

    Paul 6 did all the dirty (I mean saintly work) he should have easily slid in before Roncalli and JP2.


    Maybe you have not heard, but his train is chugging along, and he should be receiving be "Blessed Paul VI" by this Fall.  I am sure this will be followed by his "canonization."

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/25/report-pope-paul-vi-beatified-california-miracle/


    I actually did not hear.  But I am not surprised.  What surprises me is that he was not the first V2 "Pope" to be canonized.  Do they talk about virtues we should imitate in their "canonizations"?  How should we imitate V2?  By relativeising all religions so people no longer worry about the possibility of eternal damnation?  

    My question is serious.  Do they tell us to emulate any of his virtues?
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #11 on: April 28, 2014, 01:35:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.


    I see.  So if we could redefine "Saint" as "one who will 'legitimize' V2 and the new Mass" then all the anti-popes would qualify as would those who are neither Catholic or Novus Ordo.  Any ecuмenical person such as the protestant brother whom Ratzinger assured us was in Heaven.  I'm starting to get it now.  Thanks!

    Paul 6 did all the dirty (I mean saintly work) he should have easily slid in before Roncalli and JP2.


    Maybe you have not heard, but his train is chugging along, and he should be receiving be "Blessed Paul VI" by this Fall.  I am sure this will be followed by his "canonization."

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/25/report-pope-paul-vi-beatified-california-miracle/


    I actually did not hear.  But I am not surprised.  What surprises me is that he was not the first V2 "Pope" to be canonized.  Do they talk about virtues we should imitate in their "canonizations"?  How should we imitate V2?  By relativeising all religions so people no longer worry about the possibility of eternal damnation?  

    My question is serious.  Do they tell us to emulate any of his virtues?


    If anyone emulates John Paul II, they will lose their soul.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Lover of Truth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8700
    • Reputation: +1158/-863
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #12 on: April 28, 2014, 01:49:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.


    I see.  So if we could redefine "Saint" as "one who will 'legitimize' V2 and the new Mass" then all the anti-popes would qualify as would those who are neither Catholic or Novus Ordo.  Any ecuмenical person such as the protestant brother whom Ratzinger assured us was in Heaven.  I'm starting to get it now.  Thanks!

    Paul 6 did all the dirty (I mean saintly work) he should have easily slid in before Roncalli and JP2.


    Maybe you have not heard, but his train is chugging along, and he should be receiving be "Blessed Paul VI" by this Fall.  I am sure this will be followed by his "canonization."

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/25/report-pope-paul-vi-beatified-california-miracle/


    I actually did not hear.  But I am not surprised.  What surprises me is that he was not the first V2 "Pope" to be canonized.  Do they talk about virtues we should imitate in their "canonizations"?  How should we imitate V2?  By relativeising all religions so people no longer worry about the possibility of eternal damnation?  

    My question is serious.  Do they tell us to emulate any of his virtues?


    If anyone emulates John Paul II, they will lose their soul.


    That is thing.  It has gotten so absurd that when the false Popes teach the direct opposite of the Catholic faith many who call themselves traditional STILL insist the guy doing the canonizations is a valid Pope.  I don't get it.  

    What pray-tell will it take for people to understand that these guys cannot possibly be Catholic let alone valid Popes?   It is truly disturbing to me.  I try to be humorous about it, but it hurts that people who are both sincere and intelligent are fooled by the nonsense.  This is truly diabolical.  
    "I receive Thee, redeeming Prince of my soul. Out of love for Thee have I studied, watched through many nights, and exerted myself: Thee did I preach and teach. I have never said aught against Thee. Nor do I persist stubbornly in my views. If I have ever expressed myself erroneously on this Sacrament, I submit to the judgement of the Holy Roman Church, in obedience of which I now part from this world." Saint Thomas Aquinas the greatest Doctor of the Church

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5768
    • Reputation: +4621/-480
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #13 on: April 28, 2014, 02:29:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    You seek to attribute infallibility to everything after Vatican II, (including Vatican II itself, which is NOT infallible),


    I keep hearing this claim.  Unfortunately for you, if Vatican II is from the Church, then it is, as Paul 6 said, a part of the ordinary universal magisterium--which is infallible.

    It is true that Vatican II contains no solemn declarations.  It is not true that Vatican II did not teach anything.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    A Square is not a Square
    « Reply #14 on: April 28, 2014, 02:39:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Lover of Truth
    Instead of starting threads on how infallible canonizations are not infallible let's start a thread that we are not so emotionally involved in.

    Can you tell me when I don't have to believe a square is a square or a fish is a fish?  I would much prefer to believe that a fish is a rabbit and a square is a circle and that I am not a fat pig.  Can you help me please?  Anything but the truth will do as I cannot handle the truth.


    Come on now, LoT! It depends on the definition of a square and the process that led to the solemn pronouncement that a square is a square. If the investigative process was faulty in some way, one would have no moral certainty that the square is actually a square, despite the formula used that declared and defined it as such by a person possessing infallibility, when using said formula, by virtue of his office, not by infused knowledge.


    I see.  So if we could redefine "Saint" as "one who will 'legitimize' V2 and the new Mass" then all the anti-popes would qualify as would those who are neither Catholic or Novus Ordo.  Any ecuмenical person such as the protestant brother whom Ratzinger assured us was in Heaven.  I'm starting to get it now.  Thanks!

    Paul 6 did all the dirty (I mean saintly work) he should have easily slid in before Roncalli and JP2.


    Maybe you have not heard, but his train is chugging along, and he should be receiving be "Blessed Paul VI" by this Fall.  I am sure this will be followed by his "canonization."

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/25/report-pope-paul-vi-beatified-california-miracle/


    I actually did not hear.  But I am not surprised.  What surprises me is that he was not the first V2 "Pope" to be canonized.  Do they talk about virtues we should imitate in their "canonizations"?  How should we imitate V2?  By relativeising all religions so people no longer worry about the possibility of eternal damnation?  

    My question is serious.  Do they tell us to emulate any of his virtues?


    If anyone emulates John Paul II, they will lose their soul.


    That is thing.  It has gotten so absurd that when the false Popes teach the direct opposite of the Catholic faith many who call themselves traditional STILL insist the guy doing the canonizations is a valid Pope.  I don't get it.  

    What pray-tell will it take for people to understand that these guys cannot possibly be Catholic let alone valid Popes?   It is truly disturbing to me.  I try to be humorous about it, but it hurts that people who are both sincere and intelligent are fooled by the nonsense.  This is truly diabolical.  


    IMO, what will bring clarity to this will be the voice of authority.  If God sends us a Pope, or if the lawful electors, elect a Pope, there will be clarity.  If God gives us a Pope, we can have a strong hope that he will allow miracles to show Catholics the truth of his claim.
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic